DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
“a tool” in claims 1, 8 and 15
“a visual indicator” in claims 6, 13, and 19
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 8,009,425) in view of Reznikov (US 7,264,490).
Regarding claim 1, Kang teaches a slide latch mechanism (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a lever arm (51); and
a slide latch (52) configured to:
mechanically engage with the lever arm in a first position (Fig. 4); and
mechanically disengage with the lever arm in a second position (not explicitly shown, but when slide 52 is slide downward in Fig. 4 in order to release 51 shown in Fig. 5), wherein the slide latch is configured such that a user can slide the slide latch from the first position to the second position (slide 52 downward in Fig. 4 to release 51 to the second position in Fig. 5).
Kang does not teach a tool is required. However, Reznikov teaches a slide latch (118, Figs. 8-12) is configured such a tool is required to slide (col. 7, lns. 50-57: “…using various devices, including, but not limited to, hand tools, power tools, or solenoid devices.”) the slide latch from a first position (Fig. 11) to a second position (Figs. 9, 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tool is required in Kang, as taught by Reznikov, in order to prevent accidental release of the slide latch mechanism.
Regarding claim 2, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the slide latch mechanism of Claim 1, and Kang further teaches further comprising a first spring (70, Fig. 4) configured to bias the slide latch towards the first position.
Regarding claim 3, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the slide latch mechanism of Claim 1, and Kang further teaches wherein, as the lever arm moves from an open position (Fig. 5) to a closed position (Figs. 3, 4, 6), the slide latch is configured to: slide from the first position, due to force exerted by the lever arm, towards the second position (col. 2, lns. 36-52: “…the wedge-shaped protrusion 515 urges the blocking member 52 to move sideways…”); and automatically return to the first position, due to force exerted by the first spring, as the lever arm reaches the closed position (biased by 70 as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the slide latch mechanism of Claim 2, and Kang further teaches a pivot (431, Figs. 1-2) around which the lever arm is configured to rotate (Fig. 5); and a second spring (60, Figs. 1-2, 4) configured to bias the lever arm towards an open position (Fig. 5) such that the lever arm automatically releases towards the open position when the slide latch and lever arm mechanically disengage (col. 2, lns. 1-12: “…spring 60… ejection force…”).
Regarding claim 5, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the slide latch mechanism of Claim 1, and Kang further teaches wherein the slide latch mechanism is configured to: lock an information handling resource (col. 1, lns. 35-52: “…data storage device…”) in an information handling system (col. 1, lns. 35-42: “…computer or an electronic device…”) when the lever arm and slide latch are mechanically engaged (Fig. 6); and release the information handling resource for removal from the information handling system when the lever arm and slide latch are mechanically disengaged (Fig. 5).
Kang does not explicitly teach the information handling resource is for cold-service. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the information handling resource is for cold-service in Kang in view of Reznikov, since it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schneller, 44 USPQ 2d 1429 (Fed Cir. 1997); In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Benner, 82 USPQ 49 (CCPA 1949). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art can use the information handling resource for hot and/or cold service, and this does not yield any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 6, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the slide latch mechanism of Claim 1, and Kang further teaches wherein the slide latch further comprises a visual indicator (52 can acts as a visual indicator) indicating a direction in which the slide latch moves to mechanically disengage from the lever arm (52 is visually shown downward in Fig. 4 and 52 will be visually pushed upward by 70 when 51 is released to position of Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the slide latch mechanism of Claim 1, and Kang further teaches wherein a top surface of the slide latch is substantially flush or sub-flush with an adjacent surface (self-explanatory in Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 8, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches an information handling system (col. 1, lns. 35-42: “…computer or an electronic device…”) comprising:
at least one information handling resource (col. 1, lns. 35-52: “…data storage device…”) configured to be removed from the information handling system after the information handling system is powered down (inherently can be removed when powered down), wherein the at least one cold-service information handling resource comprises:
a slide latch mechanism (mechanism shown in Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a lever arm (51); and
a slide latch (52) configured to:
mechanically engage with the lever arm in a first position (Fig. 4); and
mechanically disengage with the lever arm in a second position (not explicitly shown, but when slide 52 is slide downward in Fig. 4 in order to release 51 shown in Fig. 5), wherein the slide latch is configured such that a user can slide the slide latch from the first position to the second position (slide 52 downward in Fig. 4 to release 51 to the second position in Fig. 5).
Kang does not teach a tool is required. However, Reznikov teaches a slide latch (118, Figs. 8-12) is configured such a tool is required to slide (col. 7, lns. 50-57: “…using various devices, including, but not limited to, hand tools, power tools, or solenoid devices.”) the slide latch from a first position (Fig. 11) to a second position (Figs. 9, 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tool is required in Kang, as taught by Reznikov, in order to prevent accidental release of the slide latch mechanism.
Kang does not explicitly teach the information handling resource is for cold-service. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the information handling resource is for cold-service in Kang in view of Reznikov, since it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schneller, 44 USPQ 2d 1429 (Fed Cir. 1997); In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Benner, 82 USPQ 49 (CCPA 1949). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art can use the information handling resource for hot and/or cold service, and this does not yield any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Kang teaches the information handling system of Claim 8, and Kang teaches wherein the slide latch mechanism further comprises a first spring (70, Fig. 4) configured to bias the slide latch towards the first position.
Regarding claim 10, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the information handling system of Claim 9, and Kang further teaches wherein, as the lever arm moves from an open position (Fig. 5) to a closed position (Figs. 3, 4, 6), the slide latch is configured to: slide from the first position, due to force exerted by the lever arm, towards the second position (col. 2, lns. 36-52: “…the wedge-shaped protrusion 515 urges the blocking member 52 to move sideways…”); and automatically return to the first position, due to force exerted by the first spring, as the lever arm reaches the closed position (biased by 70 as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 11, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the information handling system of Claim 9, and Kang further teaches wherein the slide latch mechanism further comprises: a pivot (431, Figs. 1-2) around which the lever arm is configured to rotate (Fig. 5); and a second spring (60, Figs. 1-2, 4) configured to bias the lever arm towards an open position (Fig. 5) such that the lever arm automatically releases towards the open position when the slide latch and lever arm mechanically disengage (col. 2, lns. 1-12: “…spring 60… ejection force…”).
Regarding claim 12, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the information handling system of Claim 8, and Kang further teaches wherein the slide latch mechanism is configured to: lock the at least one cold-service information handling resource (established in above claim 8) in the information handling system when the lever arm and slide latch are mechanically engaged (Fig. 6); and release the at least one cold-service information handling resource for removal from the information handling system when the lever arm and slide latch are mechanically disengaged (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 13, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the information handling system of Claim 8, and Kang further teaches wherein the slide latch further comprises a visual indicator (52 can acts as visual indicator) indicating a direction in which the slide latch moves to mechanically disengage from the lever arm (52 is visually shown downward in Fig. 4 and 52 will be visually pushed upward by 70 when 51 is released to position of Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the information handling system of Claim 8, and Kang further teaches wherein a top surface of the slide latch is substantially flush or sub-flush with an adjacent surface (self-explanatory in Figs. 3, 4).
Regarding claim 15, Kang teaches a method of making a slide latch mechanism (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
mechanically coupling a lever arm (51) to a pivot (431, Figs. 1-2); and
mechanically coupling a slide latch (52) to a first spring (70, Fig. 4) configured to bias the slide latch to a first position (Fig. 4), wherein the slide latch is configured to:
mechanically engage with the lever arm in the first position (as shown in Fig. 4); and
mechanically disengage with the lever arm in a second position (not explicitly shown, but when slide 52 is slide downward in Fig. 4 in order to release 51 shown in Fig. 5), and wherein the slide latch is further configured such that a user can slide the slide latch from the first position to the second position (slide 52 downward in Fig. 4 to release 51 to the second position in Fig. 5).
Kang does not teach a tool is required. However, Reznikov teaches a slide latch (118, Figs. 8-12) is configured such a tool is required to slide (col. 7, lns. 50-57: “…using various devices, including, but not limited to, hand tools, power tools, or solenoid devices.”) the slide latch from a first position (Fig. 11) to a second position (Figs. 9, 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a tool is required in Kang, as taught by Reznikov, in order to prevent accidental release of the slide latch mechanism.
Regarding claim 16, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the method of Claim 15 further comprising: mechanically coupling a second spring (60, Figs. 1-2, 4) to the lever arm, wherein the second spring is configured to bias the lever arm towards an open position (Fig. 5) such that the lever arm automatically releases towards the open position when the slide latch and lever arm mechanically disengage (col. 2, lns. 1-12: “…spring 60… ejection force…”).
Regarding claim 17, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the method of Claim 15, and Kang further teaches wherein as the lever arm moves from an open position (Fig. 5) to a closed position (Figs. 3, 4, 6), the slide latch is configured to: slide from the first position, due to force exerted by the lever arm, towards the second position (col. 2, lns. 36-52: “…the wedge-shaped protrusion 515 urges the blocking member 52 to move sideways…”); and automatically return to the first position, due to force exerted by the first spring, as the lever arm reaches the closed position (biased by 70 as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 18, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the method of Claim 15, and Kang further teaches wherein the slide latch mechanism is configured to: lock an information handling resource (col. 1, lns. 35-52: “…data storage device…”) in an information handling system (col. 1, lns. 35-42: “…computer or an electronic device…”) when the lever arm and slide latch are mechanically engaged (Fig. 6); and release the information handling resource for removal from the information handling system when the lever arm and slide latch are mechanically disengaged (Fig. 5).
Kang does not explicitly teach the information handling resource is for cold-service. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the information handling resource is for cold-service in Kang in view of Reznikov, since it is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. In re Schneller, 44 USPQ 2d 1429 (Fed Cir. 1997); In re Spada, 15 USPQ 2d 1655 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Benner, 82 USPQ 49 (CCPA 1949). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art can use the information handling resource for hot and/or cold service, and this does not yield any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the method of Claim 15, and Kang further teaches wherein the slide latch further comprises a visual indicator (52 can acts as a visual indicator) indicating a direction in which the slide latch moves to mechanically disengage from the lever arm (52 is visually shown downward in Fig. 4 and 52 will be visually pushed upward by 70 when 51 is released to position of Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 20, Kang in view of Reznikov teaches the method of Claim 15, and Kang further teaches wherein a top surface of the slide latch is substantially flush or sub-flush with an adjacent surface (self-explanatory in Figs. 3, 4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841